Veeam VBR v13 MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Edit'), but doesn't specify whether this requires admin rights, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing settings, or potential side effects like performance impacts. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what latency settings are, how to structure the 'body', or what the tool returns, making it incomplete for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'latency settings' but doesn't explain the 'id' (e.g., datastore identifier) or 'body' (e.g., specific settings like thresholds or policies). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely undefined.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Edit latency settings for a specific datastore' clearly states the action (edit) and resource (datastore latency settings), but it's somewhat vague about what 'latency settings' entail. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateStorageLatencySettings' or 'GetDatastoreLatencySettings', leaving ambiguity about scope and uniqueness.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a datastore ID or specific permissions, and doesn't mention related tools like 'DeleteDatastoreLatencySettings' or 'GetDatastoreLatencySettings' for comparison.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.